[Comparison of total hip arthroplasty via a posterior mini-incision versus a classic anterolateral approach]

Abstract

Surgical approaches to the hip for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are termed minimally invasive when allowing for a skin incision length of 10 cm or less. The aim of this study was to explore if a minimally invasive posterior approach compared to a classic anterolateral approach negatively influenced surgical time, blood loss, implant position, or perioperative complications. Two groups of THA patients mainly differing with respect to the surgical approach were compared. Results of 76 consecutive THA via a posterior mini-incision approach were recorded prospectively and those of 76 controls operated via a classic anterolateral approach were recorded retrospectively. THA was performed by the same surgeon in every case. Surgical time or intraoperative blood loss were not different among the groups. Total 24-h blood loss was significantly less in patients undergoing THA via minimally invasive posterior approaches. Median cup inclination was 45 degrees in both groups. Cup anteversion was 15 degrees (classic anterolateral) and 12 degrees (minimally invasive posterior), respectively. Stem position was regarded as neutral in 80% of THA through classic anterolateral and in 76 % through minimally invasive dorsal incisions. Complications occurred in 8% (classic anterolateral) and 9% (minimally invasive posterior) of THA patients. Surgical time, blood loss, risk of malpositioned implants, or complications were not increased for THA patients operated through minimally invasive posterior incisions compared to those operated via classic anterolateral approaches.